Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have been quoted as having used Wikipedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have been quoted as having used Wikipedia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LISTN because "celebrities who have used Wikipedia" has not been discussed as a group or set in independent reliable sources. SSTflyer 16:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 16:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 16:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonnotable trivia. Pburka (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List not notable. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete. Given that good articles are assumed to have proper and reliable sources (direct quotations or otherwise), this is more simply a "List of people who have used Wikipedia." An unimportant list regarding a non-notable, unencyclopedic fact. Or perhaps we want a "List of people who have been quoted as having used Google" and "List of people who have been quoted as having used YouTube" too? That sounds delightful. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly was a reasonable concept in 2005, but in 2016 you'd have to list people who haven't used Wikipedia. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SUBJECT and Mr. Magoo. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems a little self important. I doubt such a list would be relevant in any context for other encyclopedias or knowledge bases, is there a People who use JSTOR article? How about Brittanica? Tpdwkouaa (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to WP namespace. Indiscriminate list of trivia that probably interest some, but may be an inappropriate amount of self-references.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate list of trivia.--Staberinde (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this rubbish. Neutrality^talk 02:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as although amusing, this is still questionable for noticeably better. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.